Tag Archives: stakeholder engagement

UFHRD 2014: 4 June, parallel session on Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation

We’ve now moved to the parallel sessions and I’ll be taking short notes on these.

We’re starting with Lynne Booth, Michelle Blackburn and Simon Warwick (Sheffield Hallam) on the effective use and assessment of web-based collaborative learning. The learning intervention was in the context of a UG programme on business and human resources and the development of a first year course. Also positioned in the context of a institutional emphasis on employability and the student experience to develop tangible evidence of the HR knowledge of students. So the course was based on the production of HR websites by the student groups using Google Sites so outside the VLE but able to use Sites templates.

While group work was popular but not for assessment due to social loafing (and emphasised by employers) so generated a way of differential marking. Groups were self-selected by should be mixed gender and mixed culture with an aim for authentic learning to enhance employability.

The websites were tone developed as a response to a development need identified by a fictional HR manager by email.

Students also had to create a academic reflection on the sites produced.

Students tended not to react to formative feedback but did appear to have a positive effect on placement rates but was difficult to mark. Little evidence of social loafing.

There remains an issue on scalability and support from learning technologists for staff and students. Also, all other modules use more traditional assessments.

Placing the Transfer of Learning at the Heart of HRD Practice with Vivienne Griggs, Dianne McLaren, Barbara Nixon, Joanna Smith of Leeds Met but the research involves both Synaptic Change Ltd and Connecting Housing on testing a transfer of learning model. The research on the model is framed by issues of alignment between L&D and business strategy as well as the use of big data in evaluation of L&D. The model was based on the importance of the line manager in L&D in embedding training and development outcomes in BAU. Also sought to embed evaluation as a process in L&D interventions.

A key focus was to define success criteria for the individual, the trainer, the line managers and the organisation which can be a challenge.

The training was on having difficult conversations which was followed by stakeholder focus groups and interviews on how effective the model was seen for transferring and embedding training and learning. A stakeholder approach including the trainees in defining success criteria was important in the overall success of the intervention. However, there was little preparation by line managers for the transfer of training. Line managers seemed disengaged from the use of the training but peer support was effective. A trainee comments that they would want their manager involved!

There is an issue of scaling the process to larger organisations. Further development to involve sustainability of impacts and supporting peer-support.

Return on Investment: Contrary to Popular Belief, MOOC’s Are Not Free with Marie A. Valentin, Fred Nafukho, Celestino Valentin Jr., Detra Johnson, John LeCounte (Texas A&M) started with a introduction to MOOCs and the research questions on the true costs of MOOCs and the direct and indirect ROE based on Human Capital Theory. The research seemed to be

MOOC providers making revenue from credits; certification; but also recruitment services pay a fee for data on users, text book sales by linking the course to the text book; selling data to third parties and claims for HEI recruitment to mainstream programmes. This was a work-in-progress and was very much orientated to xMOOCs and the VC-backed US MOOC providers.

A New Agenda for Organisational Effectiveness?

Earlier this week, I went to a CIPD Knowledge into Practice Seminar and launch of the CIPD book, People & Organisational Development: a new agenda for organisational effectiveness.

The authors argued that the dominant business paradigm of shareholder value is nolonger fit for purpose – we,the public, expect more from companies as “good” citizens. In other words, a return to the stakeholder approach to business and management. Mirroring such changes in the field of HR, they argued that the business-centric approach of the Business Partner model was similarly nolonger appropriate and should be replaced by a more humanistic approach integrating organisational development in to new perspectives on organisational effectiveness. It would be interesting to hear the debate with the CIPDs work on “business savvy” which seems to me to be very focused on the “non-humanist” and “people as assets” perspective.

They proposed a four pronged approach to the required new approach involving

  • language and action – a narrative turn in analysing management practices
  • authenticity and mutuality – acknowledging a two way relationship between the employee and employer. Which itself is highly fluid – as the point was made at the event, as an employee is the offer of enhanced “employability” competences enough of an offer if there is a longer-term job shortage (although this now seems less likely than was thought a few months ago)
  • leadership and management – although what this entailed other than managing people differently and dispersing leadership throughout the organisation wasn’t really clear
  • paradox and ambiguity – as something managers need to be more comfortable dealing with. We could here to approaches like the Cynefin framework or polarity management.
  • What I’m hoping from the book is that we see how these concepts can be operationalised in to [daily] management practice … we shall see

    I get knocked down, I get up again

    Came across this post at Idea Sandbox on developing bullet proof plans:
    Measuring twice means making sure you’ve thought of all the things that could go wrong before you launch. It means making sure you’ve thought of all of your different audiences… not just the customer, but the salespeople as well. Do you have a “Plan B” in case the project or program does not go as planned? What if the project or program is much less or much more successful than anticipated… do you have a plan to deal with either situation?

    I like to use a similar approach in project planning drawing on de Bono’s six thinking hats using the red, yellow and red hats to develop our initial plans – it feels right, we’ve cranked the numbers an it works and we’re all feeling generally positive. At this point, getting negative and critical as possible can be really difficult – but ‘enabling’ negative thinking through the black hat seems to work (along with help from people outside the planning team – and is also really valuable. By knocking the thinking to date and kick starting a process of rebuilding the concept and plans to address identified weaknesses generates better planning, greater team commitment and senior management buy-in in my experience. I’ve also found it an excellent process to support team learning.

    Where the size and complexity of the project or programme of work justifies it, testing initial concepts and plans against a set of future scenarios to test risks and assumptions as well as support team and stakeholder understanding of the broader context of the project/ programme. I’ve only done a few scenario exercises with stakeholders but the impact on stakeholder engagement later in the project has been immense.

    As the theory suggests, the process of testing and exploring possible (risky) aspects of projects and programmes enables far better responsiveness by the team and stakeholders once implementation is underway.